12 000 BC Civilization at the Seas edge?

I just want to propose a theory i have always believed in, even when i was back at high school.

The last ice age would have been a difficult time for humanity. But think to yourself, where would you go if your world was freezing?
Would it not make sense that humans would have journeyed towards the equatorial regions, to areas more hospitable. Now these areas i propose would
have lined the equator all around the world because it would have the most moderate climate. Now we can look at a map and follow the equator and see
for ourselves the continents that would be involved. Now to search at the present seas edge would be wrong, because the sea level was far lower. So i
propose that if we could figure out the amount of sea loss at the peak of the ice age and we focus our views either side of the equator, i believe we
would find remnants of mans past. Maybe great cities, but maybe not, maybe hunter gather stones and tools. But i do believe, that our past, at least
from before 12 000 BC is waiting under the ocean to be discovered. Now if we could find something significant from that time period it could turn our
knowledge of mans past on its head. Other great finds like Gobekli Tepe began around 11000 BC after the ice began to melt. However for 100 000 years,
where was mankind? We didn't just appear, we didn't just begin to build monuments. I will tell you were man was, by the seas edge, in the warmth of
the sun, doing what man does best, questioning, imagining, and searching for answers to his existence. 100 000 years of history and its all deep under
the ocean, but is it preserved?

I will tell you were man was, by the seas edge, in the warmth of the sun, doing what man does best, questioning, imagining, and searching for answers
to his existence. 100 000 years of history and its all deep under the ocean, but is it preserved?

If i we're by the sea's edge the last thing i would be doing is giving a crap about the answers to my existence. I'd be imaging that juicy fish i
was going to catch and eat.

Underwater archeaology has already discovered that the oceans were once much much shallower than they are now. 1500 settlement sites have been
discovered on the bottom of the Mediteranean sea, yet more were discovered in the English channel and archeaologists have dredged up "pre-historic"
tools and artifacts off the coasts of the Netherlands and the North Sea. Then there's this little gem i picked up from an article about underwater
brine lakes on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico:

Which proves there was some type of Great Flood cataclysm in our past because i can tell you, that trees do not grow 650 feet on the bottom of the
Gulf of Mexico, and those are trees in those pics.

Look up the term "Ice age refuge point", modern man took up several notable refuge points during the ice age, such as the Levant and the Iberian
Peninsula. (Neanderthals did as well, although there were largely extinct by the time modern man arrived in Europe. For the most part, Africa was
quite green during the Ice age with a large lake in the area where the Sahara is now. So they would not have viewed the ice age as an unpleasant
experience. The Americas were not yet inhabited, in fact it was the ice age that permitted modern man to reach it.

Maybe the flood you are referring to is the melting of the ice sheets. Do they know how old that is?

edit on 15-8-2012 by australianobserver
because: Spelling

Waters rising and people dying, sounds like a flood to me. The fact that tools have been found that far down on the bottom of the ocean is indicative
that the people didn't have time to run or move away. Tools are not easy to make, it takes hours to make one tool, they wouldn't have been items
people just left lying around or left behind. If the Antarctica Ice sheet slides into the ocean all at once it's going to make one hell of a tsunami,
we're talking hundreds of meters high. Not only that but to find tools on the bottom of a sea, would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, so
there had to be alot of people living in that area, or those people working those dredging ships got one hell of a winning streak and i need to borrow
one of them for a night at Vegas.

I appreciate your knowledge on the subject it is great, but we must remember it is all speculation and theory, and is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
What if humans existed prior to the ice age, i don't think that is a great stretch. As you can probably tell i am not a big proponent of the out of
Africa theory. We always seem to think everything as to originate from one place, but that is not necessarily true.

I can't be bothered with links, but ATS's most popular threadmaker, SLAYER69, believes wholeheartedly in this theory and has posted many interesting
threads about it. Check his profile out for more information.

What if humans existed prior to the ice age, i don't think that is a great stretch.

Well that's not a stretch, it's a given.

Consider this - we are currently going through global warming that is melting the ice sheets and raising ocean levels. Do you see those ocean levels
rising so fast that it would trap a hunter-gatherer village beneath the waves? We're talking inches of sea level rise per year, or maybe a foot or
two. Significant, yes, but it's not a "global biblical flood". Of course, settlements are abandoned all the time, and eventually lost to the seas,
and numerous cities along the Med. sea have sunk, and rivers have shifted course (some quite dramatically and rapidly) that have left cities behind
from their banks, even the Sumerian cities were once along the Persian Gulf coastline, and are now quite landlocked. I'd be far more inclined to
think a tsunami would wipe out an ancient city rather than sea level changes. Topography changes, but not at the rate and scale you're thinking
along. to think the rising sea levels would destroy an entire civilization would be like thinking an entire civilization could be destroyed by
continental drift. Not too mention, a proper civilization would leave a vast amount of evidence behind of it's existence, even if it were lost
beneath the waves.

I don't think the ice age meltdown was a fast one to kill people.
it would have been a gradual melt of course, providing people of those times with enough time to move elsewhere to high lands , away from the rising
waters.

The only ones that would have died would have been on pieces of lands surrounded by rising water and who didn't knew how to swim.
regarding the levels of water during the ice age meltdown, you could refer to

That is interesting comparing current global warming. But i am thinking that the ice age although gradual, would still have brought massive instant
disasters. Due to the sheer amount of ice, if chunk of it weakened and broke off sending a huge amount into the sea, there would be displacement of
the ocean and cause waves, which could wipe out low lying areas before the gradual sea level rise. It is all hypothetical of course, and your argument
has great merit. But i do believe their would have been instances where events happened quickly and early man had little time to evade them.

Doggerland was above sea level at that time, however it would have been covered in the European ice sheet for most of the ice age except for the last
few thousand years, so there may not have been time their for a great civilization to thrive.

One huge glaring problem with your idea is the lack of agriculture, you can't have cities without developed agriculture. Every where you look
agriculture preceeds cities. And as for the domesticated plants and animals there is a pretty clear line of development from thier wild forms. And
they all post date your 12 k year threshold.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.